No one said city retirees would get health care for life, but only to age 65 (Medicare eligibility). That benefit was enacted in 2009, so, if the city retirement age is 55, that is a maximum of 10 years. Some of those people retired up to 3 years ago, reducing their benefit to 7 years from the present. Anyone who retired over age 55, would also receive less than the 10 years.

Aside from the above, perhaps you haven't considered the cost of acquiring individal (private) health coverage at age 55 or above, if it's even available. If the city chooses to end coverage at retirement under the new policy, employees should be given the opportunity to convert their group coverage to individual coverage at retirement. Conversion will cost the retiree more, but not nearly as much as individual coverage acquired for the first time at age 55 plus. Those who have already retired would very likely be unable to obtain affordable coverage elsewhere

In 2009, Gretna made a promise to cover health insurance between the time an employee retired and the time they became eligible for Medicare. They owe that promise to those who retired under that benefit and to those who would be adversely affected without recourse, by rescinding that benefit. They should offer policy conversion to those currently employed, but not retiring within 6 months of the effective date of the new policy, in order to protect those employees and give ample warning to future retirees. Those who are retiring within those six months should be offered the choice of being grandfathered into the current arrangement or converting their group insurance to individual coverage.

This would not be an outrageous sum to cover for perhaps 20 workers between age 55 and 65 who otherwise would be faced with coverage at an unaffordable price or even no coverage at all.

This suggestion is being offered as a possible compromise between saving money and saving health care for retired employees, in keeping with the basic purpose of government to provide for the general welfare, employees included. Honesty in government means keeping its promises.

I have no personal interest in this matter. To the best of my knowledge, no relative of mine or friends of either my relatives or me have ever worked for the city of Gretna in any capacity.

Noted the double post of my prior comment. The moderator must have read the first sentence and failed to note the sarcasm made evident by the rest of my comment. This site no longer works smoothly on any of my browsers: AOL, Explorer, Firefox or Chrome. It loads slower than my old dial-up, then takes several minutes to change pages, if it ever does.

Hope the Advocate adds a New Orleans section to its on-line paper so no one will notice when this one shuts down.

This site is GREAT! I can read it on Google Chrome, but can't post, go beyond page 1 of articles or comments, or see the videos or enlargements. To do any of those things, I have to use another browser.

The Picayune is going to live down to its name. Rather than 3 x week, it should be honest and become an urban weekly, or perhaps one of those weekly throw-aways, since it already has experience in that area. Note: I don't care to read about West Jefferson ad nauseum in the current throw-aways, since I live in Algiers. Believe it or not, TP, Algiers is part of New Orleans, not Jefferson Parish, and Algiers readers just might prefer to read about their city rather than about the neighboring parish.

The TP should also drop the "Times-" from its masthead, as it will no longer be timely, but will truly be picayune.

This site is GREAT! I can read it on Google Chrome, but can't post, go beyond page 1 of articles or comments, or see the videos or enlargements. To do any of those things, I have to use another browser.

The Picayune is going to live down to its name. Rather than 3 x week, it should be honest and become an urban weekly, or perhaps one of those weekly throw-aways, since it already has experience in that area. Note: I don't care to read about West Jefferson ad nauseum in the current throw-aways, since I live in Algiers. Believe it or not, TP, Algiers is part of New Orleans, not Jefferson Parish, and Algiers readers just might prefer to read about their city rather than about the neighboring parish.

The TP should also drop the "Times-" from its masthead, as it will no longer be timely, but will truly be picayune.

Those who vote in favor of extending the tolls are also voting for the precept that promises, even when enacted into law, are meaningless.

Remember how extending the tolls would "save" the New Orleans ferries? Maintained by the state without tolls for a century and never mentioned in regard to the bridge tolls when first imposed, nor when extended, they suddenly still exist only because of the tolls. Without the tolls, ferry service, in New Orleans only, would either cease or be privatized. This despite the fact that our ferries were never included in the bridge construction bonds, the tolls or the first toll extension. No one has ever explained just how or why they came to be included that funding. But those that wanted to keep the ferries were in favor of extending the tolls to save the them.

At the last possible moment, the New Orleans ferries were specifically excluded from funding by those tolls and service is to end or be privatized, exactly what was threatened if the tolls were not extended.

As for all that construction promised with the last extension, little, if any, has been done and the exact same worthless promises are being repeated as an excuse for extending the tolls. Using their own figures, this extension includes $10 million per year to be used for more bonds to cover what was supposed to have been built and paid for with the current tolls, $6 million per year for maintenance, thus relieving the state of that financial responsibility, and finally, creating a nice little slush fund of some $6 million a year for use on non-bridge related projects. Just to make it perfect, the electorate eligible to vote on whether to extend the tolls has been expanded to include a vast majority of the local population who never use the bridge at all. But nowhere in that bill is a requirement that the DODT provide a valid explanation for their failure to use the existing tolls for the projects we are now being expected to separately fund for a second time, in addition to our regular state income taxes, a portion of which goes to DODT for the same purposes.

Lesson learned: Never, ever vote for any tax or toll referred to as "temporary." While it is in effect the powers that be will learn to depend on it for ordinary income, and, just like any other addict, be unable to give it up.

Instead of complaining, why not consider this just an historical quirk and part of what makes New Orleans unique? As usual, there is a reason for it.

Back in the old days, New Orleans Public Service, Inc. (NOPSI), a city agency which which regulated gas and electricity (and public transit) across Eastbank New Orleans, only offered gas service in Algiers. Electric service in Algiers was furnished through Louisiana Power & Light (LP & L). I don't know how this came about, but suspect it was cheaper for LP & L to supply Algiers with electricity than for New Orleans to do so. The gas remained with New Orleans because LP & L never provided that service to anyone. LP & L's electrical services in Algiers only, was, and is, regulated by the city of New Orleans.

Eastbank New Orleans received a combined bill for gas and electric service from NOPSI, while Algiers received two bills, one for gas from NOPSI and one for electricity from LP & L. Although NOPSI and LP & L merged decades ago, they never combined these Algiers accounts. nor was it done when that merged company joined Entergy. I don't know what Entergy's policy is in regard to new customers in Algiers, but this old-timer still receives two separate bills from Entergy with separate account numbers.

Algiers gas and electricity services are not part of Entergy New Orleans, but part of the larger Entergy. Although Entergy is basically regulated by the Public Service Commission (PSC), the part that was once NOPSI and regulated by the city, is still regulated by the city. The city determines the utility rates for Algiers, upon Entergy's application, but such increases are usually four months behind the rest of the city, likely because Entergy applies for increases to the PSC, before it approaches the city for an increase. Algiers ends up with about the same basic rates as Eastbank New Orleans.

From the words of Dear Leader and his lackeys, I was under the impression that the tolls were subsidizing the ferries, and, if the tolls were not extended, New Orleans ferry service would be terminated or privatized. Now his lackey just slipped in a law that says that if the tolls are extended, they cannot be used to subsidize ferry service, which is to be ended or privatized.

Dear Leader and his lackeys are a gaggle of liars. All along the real plan has been to use the tolls to buy new ferries, then hand them off to Dear Leader's buddies for their personal enrichment. If they can't make a buck here, they will just move their brand-new ferries somewhere else while the toll-payers continue to subsidize them until they are paid for. Whatever toll-funded projects Dear Leader spouts off about will turn out to be pipedreams, meant to placate the toll-payers. Dear Leader probably already has a plan in mind to move that toll income to his buddies' pockets. Dear Leader needs to hire yet another high-priced lackey, just to keep his lies straight.

Did everyone choke on reading ". . . the department [DODT] to use "best business practices" in jobbing out the ferry services. . . "? DODT hasn't the faintest idea of what best business practices are. Their expertise is in worst business practices. Too bad no one in Red Stick (except, perhaps, John Kennedy) realizes this.

Since we are to lose our ferries either way, vote no to tolls. And vote all those idiots OUT!

House Bill 812 calls for a referendum for a Constitutional Amendment requiring all fines received due to the BP spill be placed in the Coastal Protection and Restoration Fund, to be used for those purposes only. This Bill tries to insure that there will still be a physical State of Louisiana in 50 years.

BUT: This current amendment to Bill 812 allows the State Legislature to redirect those fines to other projects, unrelated to coastal restoration. It completely negates the purpose of Bill 812 and the Constitutional Amendment arising from the Bill, since the legislature can easily get a 2/3 majority in both houses whenever spending outside money is involved.

Watch Bill 812 and this amendment very closely. If it comes to public vote with this amendment in place, don't vote yes or no: Either can be construed as a vote in favor of the legislature spending the BP fines on whatever they please. Vote "blank" on the issue to express disapproval of such sneaky and underhanded practices. And if your state representative and/or senator votes for this amendment to Bill 812, vote them out of office.

Here we go again. The State once again is showing its irresponsibility by not paying its bills. Why should the State get all that money before New Orleans gets their contracted $3.6 million, when the State already owes New Orleans over $14 million that will never be paid? What this bill really does is cut New Orleans' share to $1.8 million.

Why should the State get anything before New Orleans gets its pittance? And why should anyone believe that the State won't find a way to avoid paying one cent more than that $1.8 million to the city? The State is very good at backstabbing: Just ask the state classified civil service employees. Their backs are bloody with deep stab wounds inflicted by the legislature.

Since our legislators have proven themselves incapable of controlling their greed, they should all be removed from office when they dare run again. Term limits don't matter; they just switch jobs, and we continue to elect them to those different positions, and the greed goes on. Vote the names out.

dickey3 - What is the matter with you? The risk of flooding exists everywhere in this country and there is no entity that can provide flood insurance at a price the average buyer can afford, except the federal government.

Private insurers dumped the coverage almost 50 years ago. If they were somehow forced to provide it now, the annual premium would be set higher than most annual incomes. Insurers, after all, must protect their stockholders dividends first, last and always. Policyholders only exist to keep those dividends coming. It is simply an unfortunate fact of life that policyholder claims must be paid from time to time: In a perfect world, premiums would be paid regularly and no claim would ever be filed. Profit is all that matters. Free-market stuff, you know.

If you want to buy real estate with a building on it, you will need a loan, aka, mortgage, unless you have cash to buy the property outright. Mortgage lenders require flood insurance on the building, or no mortgage will be forthcoming. If no one can afford the insurance, there will be no mortgages and no ordinary person will ever buy real estate with a building on it.

Perhaps we could all live as our forefathers did in feudal times. The 1% would own ALL the land and buildings, while the 99% would rent from them. If a flood washed a home away, the renter, having lost all his belongings, would have to rent another home, with no insurance to aid in replacing his lost personal possessions. He would likely also be charged for the destruction of the rental home, since he didn't prevent it. The 1% could insure their property, or not, as they chose. But at least there would be no government subsidy for such trivial things as homes or personal property.

And now the insurers now want to dump wind coverage. It is now so expensive, with all the deductions, that few will be able to restore their property in the future. Remember, those percentage deductibles are based on the total value of the home, not just the part damaged. A $200,000 home starts with a $4000 wind deductible (2%), before the regular deductible or any other reduction or exclusion, and regardless of the percentage of the home damaged.

". . . he [Jindal] hardly is in a position to sic college staff and state workers onto recalcitrant lawmakers."

Reminder: The only state workers that Jindal can sic on recalcitrant lawmakers are his highly-paid minions, lackeys and sycophants, appointed by Jindal as UNclassified civil servants. The ordinary rank-and-file are classified civil servants, forbidden by law to be involved in politics.

Not only disrespectful and unprofessional, but completely untrue. Not surprising: This is standard operating procedure in the Jindal administration. He and his minions are churlish boors and proud of it.

Don't know why, but I like it. Maybe because it's half a continent away?

Whatever else can be said about it, those polka dots sure beat the color some neighbors painted their house after Katrina. It exactly matched the color of the tarps FEMA nailed on our roofs a few years back. The tarps are gone, but that color lingers on.

bandit99 - What makes you think retired state employees get FREE health insurance?

If a state retiree wants health insurance, they have to pay the premium every month, just as private-sector workers do. Since few state retirees receive either Social Security or Medicare, they receive state pensions and health insurance in lieu of these private-sector benefits.

You seem to be confusing the rank-and-file classified civil service with the UNclassified civil service. Classified civil servants do the necessary work that keeps the state running smoothly year in and year out, regardless of who is in office or who the governor hires as his personal yes men, at their highly publicized salaries. Don't berate rank-and-file state employees for the excesses of the uppermost levels of government: We do the actual work; they claim the credit, just like the private sector.

Classified civil servants buy food, clothes and cars as well as the occasional home, where we raise our families. We buy insurance for our homes, cars and family, just as you do. We pay taxes at the same rates as you. And when we retire, we still need to have these things. All-in-all, the major difference between public and private rank-and-file workers is that the public workers' pay is far below that of the private sector, which is likely why you don't work for the state. However, we don't think of you as "slobs," but as our ultimate employers. And we do work for you, regardless of how ungrateful you may be. Active state employee or retired, we don't ask for gratitude, just civility.

Actually, webre123, you were right the first time, at least in regard to STATE pensions. The pension exclusion you mentioned refers to private-sector pensions.

There is a sneaky little law, regulation or perhaps, an edict, enacted without prior notice to the affected parties, which decrees that if you receive a state pension, the highest SSA benefit you can receive is 40% of what you otherwise would have received. Of course there is a lot more verbage, but that mostly just messes with other eligible recipients of the earner's SSA benefits, in some cases reducing their benefit to $0. Whoever invented this bit of legal theft considered receipt of earned SSA benefits in conjunction with a state pension, was somehow a windfall, and had to be "adjusted."

Jindal's plan is very simple: Require rank-and-file classified state workers to pay the state's arrears, then shaft them on their retirement income. These workers owe no arrears themselves, and there is nothing in this set of bills that would benefit them, but much that will harm them. Jindal, however, cares nothing about the rank-and-file classified civil employees; he just wants to have someone else pay what the state owes.

The governor's plan, as originally presented, was a clever ploy, purposefully filled with un-Constitutional and questionable, possibly illegal sections, so that opponents could object, and the administration, while initially insisting that everything was legal and above-board, could then magnanimously back down and remove those parts, while leaving the actual plan intact. This was the purpose behind requiring the 3% increase in employees' share go into the general fund rather than into LASERS, and raising the retirement age astronomically while lowering retirement benefits. Another part of his plan was to rush the necessary bills through to passage before anyone could carefully examine their contents. Under the "revised" plan, there has been no backing down on the increase in employees' share, nor in raising the retirement age and cutting benefits; the implementation is just prolonged. The employee will eventually have to pay more and work longer for less benefits.

Every classified civil servant has paid their contracted share of their retirement on time and in full. The state, on the other hand, knowingly failed to pay its full share for decades. It's not that they couldn't afford the payments, rather, they chose to spend the money elsewhere. The legislators have long known that once funds transfer to LASERS, there's no taking it back, so they deliberately chose to hold back a large portion of the state's payments owed to LASERS in order to spend it on their pet projects. In spite of the staggering shortfall in state contributions over those decades, LASERS has done remarkably well in its wise choice of long-term investments. One must wonder what LASERS might have accomplished, had they had the state's full share to invest.

The cruelest and most devious part of this plan is the proposed switch from a guaranteed state pension to a 401-k type retirement plan. It callously ignores the fact that private-sector retirees who lose their pensions and/or 401-k's, still have Social Security with which to eke out the rest of their lives. State employees, however, were long ago given state pensions in lieu of Social Security, so, if these 401-k's fail, they will become penniless through no fault of their own. Jindal has spoken of somehow protecting workers from market downturns, but to date has offered no way of doing so.

No one should support this plan to deprive workers of their justly earned retirement income, nor require them to pay the state's obligations out of their own pockets.

Back when Nagin was running for his second term, I had a serious discussion with myself as to what qualities our mayor would need over the next several years, considering the city's then-current situation. My conclusion was that it would need a politician more than a businessman. There was going to be a lot of interaction between the city, state and federal politicos in regard to funding after the Engineer's Flood of '05. A politician would be far more adept at handling other politicians, and thus gain more for the city. Well, we all know what happened when the businessman won. He was never the same after Katrina, and we, the citizens, were paying a whole lot more attention to the doings of city officials than we had in decades. In fact, we did a complete 180, and become positively eagle-eyed over the smallest detail. A sorry combination for the businessman, who was apparently hanging on to his sanity by his fingernails.

In the last mayoral go-round, the politician won. Better late than never, I hoped. Perhaps it was too late; only time will tell. But we must give him the same chance we gave Nagin. Whether he, too, falls flat on his face, remains to be seen. Frankly, if some (most, please!) of the behind-the-scenes corruption is made public and ended, the politician will have done a better job than has occurred in the past several decades. I do not mind compromise; I favor it, if it moves us on to where we should be, and is not reached due to those quiet considerations resulting in illegal personal gain, for which we have become infamous.

I do not expect any mayor to perform miracles, although a few amazing feats would be appreciated. And I don't care whether the next mayor is purple with green spots and orange stripes; if s/he can just do the job s/he was elected to do. I definitely won't care who endorses him/her, or who he/she endorses. My interest is in whether the candidate can meet the city's needs.

All I am asking is that, of the candidates in the next batch running for mayor, each have more genuine qualifications for the job than the group as a whole has ever evidenced in the past. And, unless some true illicit activity is unearthed on a specific candidate, I want every ad in all media to speak to its referenced candidate's qualifications and plans, with no attacks on other candidates.

". . . the lanes, while narrow by modern standards, are not nearly as narrow as they seem."

I could never bring myself to subscribe to that widely touted belief that those lanes were actually nine feet wide. I'm not blind: Those lanes were two feet wide -- especially whenever I glanced in the rearvew mirror and saw a tractor-trailer charging toward me. Did anyone else feel as if their car actually cringed when passed by a truck? Sheer terror: It's going to knock me over the side this time, for sure!

I always stayed in one lane, except when there was a semi ahead of me; no one could pass it as it went down the middle, so I happily drove in the middle as well.